I just need to get confirmation on a question; I am trying to start my first layout in N Scale - I read in the 101 Layout book that all I have to do is divide the HO size by 2 to get the size for N Scale. Does that hold true for the MR Database?
It doesn’t hold true either place, actually.
101 Track Plans is a neat old book, with “old” being the operative word. It doesn’t reflect current thinking and many of the designs are unsuitable as drawn in HO scale.
The correct reduction for HO scale to N scale is 87.1/160, or about 54%. It doesn’t seem like that’s a big difference from a simple 50%, but when you also consider that many published plans in HO are overly optimistic, it’s often better to think about reducing them by 1/3 rather than 1/2. That will often yield a more buildable, reliable, and scenic plan.
If it’s a plan with aisles or access holes, it’s more complicated, because the human operators don’t scale down as do the trains. N scale plans will take relatively more room than their HO counterparts if they have internal aisles.
But of course it depends on which plan you are considering.
It is generally true for any track plan but NOT recommended. Instead of dividibing by 2 (multiplying by 1/2). I recommend multiplying the HO plan horizontal dimensions by no less than 2/3. Multiplying by 3/4 would be much better. This should work for an island type layout although minor adustments might be necessary to accomodate differences in the brand(s) of track (particulary switches)
For larger layouts more adjustments will usually have to be made. .For instance if there are operating or access aisles, the overall size of the layout may have to be larger and possibly the shape of the layout changed to keep them wide enough to be useable.
In either case, if the layout has grades, elevations may also be multiplied by the same factor (2/3 or 3/4) as the horizontal dimensions. However, dividing the elevations by 2 will usually still provide adequate vertical clearances and have the added benefit of reducing the % of grade.
What do you mean? Even if the aisles do not shrink, the N scale plan will still be smaller than HO (e.g. it will fit into a smaller room).
Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
Andy
That’s why I used the word relatively. Yes, an N scale layout with internal aisles will likely be smaller than HO, but not by the full scale ratio of 54% of the HO size. This is because the aisles must be relatively larger in the N scale plan than the HO plan to accommodate a full-sized human, whether that human models in HO or N scale.
For example, if an HO plan has 30" internal aisles and we reduce the plan to N scale (54% of HO), we can’t get by with 16.2" wide aisles. The N scale plan will still need the same 30" aisles, making it relatively larger than the nominal scale reduction would predict…
But since we don’t know what kinds of plans interest the Original Poster, it’s impossible to know if this comes into play.
I suggest you get a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. Even if you start with a published plan this book will help you understand curves, grades, etc., as well as operational considerations.
Personally, I consider published plans as inspiration. Modify, combine, or steal ideas from them. If you want to follow a plan exactly then look to MR’s project railroads which appear annually or their books such as N Scale Railroading: Getting Started in the Hobby, Second Edition by Martin McGuirk
Good luck
Paul
If you’re looking at a small HO layout, like a plan for a 4 x 8, I’d consider building it in N scale but using the same trackplan in the same space. Most 4 x 8 HO layouts use 18" or even 15" radius curves, which are very sharp for HO and will limit what equipment can be used. 15"R or larger curves are considered broad curves in N, and you could run the biggest equipment you wanted to.